Re: Rauhut's Thesis

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Fascinating treatise by Dr. Rauhut. Many question apart from the most
> general one how much can the matrix preparation be trusted.
>
> [...]
> >      |______Segisaurus
> >       |        |_Syntarsus
> >       |        |_Coelophysis
> >       |        |_Gojirasaurus
> >       |        |_Shuvosaurus
> >       |        |__Liliensternus liliensterni
> >       |         |__Liliensternus airelensis
> >       |________Dilophosaurus
>
> So this part of the tree appears to be an artefact arising through the
> inclusion of Shuvosaurus- the Coelophysids should be monophyletic.

While *Shuvosaurus* does appear to be a theropod now (thanks for the link!),
it's really strange IMHO that it comes out in the middle of a good, old,
polytomic Coelophysidae. That the latter excludes *Dilophosaurus* is not
totally unexpected, as it was a rather common idea in earlier times (10, 20
years ago) that *Dilophosaurus* is close to Tetanurae or spinosaurs in
particular.

> >                   |______________Troodontidae
> >                             |         |___Dromaeosauridae (including
> >Sinornithosaurus)
>
> So a Sereno like Deinonychosauria is supported here.

:-o

> >                             |_________Unenlagia
> >                                     |_____Aves (including Rahonavis)
>
> So were there Deinonychosaurs in South America or India? If the relative
> large Unenlagia is not exactly a Deinonychosaur and closer to the birds
but
> not one as yet then what exactly was it.

The evil question -- what is included in Aves here? Only *Archaeopteryx* and
*Rahonavis*, in which case Metornithes respectively Pygostylia might fall
out somewhere else...?

Many thanks for the various experiments on the position of segnosaurs. This
must have eliminated every doubt...